Disney's JOHN CARTER

[OmahaStar]

propita wrote:

---

The politics inside a studio are self-defeating at the studio level, but I suppose they help those individuals involved.

I think it's like that at most, if not all, studios. I'd point to Warner Brothers for a perfect example of that. Each department (much less each division) actively works against all other departments. The television and movie divisions are actively at war with each other, and simply don't work together ... ever.

jmsnews.com has an archive of J. Michael Straczynski's posts over the years. Search for Warner or WB. It's fascinating.

[Galileo7]

Deckerd wrote:

---

I think marketing are more guilty here than the director. Whoever decided to remove 'of Mars' from the title probably cost Disney $100m or so.

Agree.

[Harvey]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) was a fairly decent film despite the cheesy title and cost £1.2M to make - does anyone know if it turned a profit?

At this point it probably has, but judging by some of the remarks on the audio commentary on the DVD/Blu-Ray, it wasn't a huge hit at the box office when it was first released. I can't find any figures online, though.

[Admiral2]

Deckerd wrote:

---

Why go to all that effort and expense and be left with a product which a substantial number of people who saw it didn't realise it wasn't on Earth?

Given the number times the name Mars was mentioned after John Carter realized where he was only an idiot would still be stuck thinking it was Earth for the rest of the movie. Come on.

[Bob The Skutter]

Mars? You are on Barsoom, John Carter.

[captcalhoun]

should've stuck with "Princess of Mars"...

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Harvey wrote:

---

At this point it probably has, but judging by some of the remarks on the audio commentary on the DVD/Blu-Ray, it wasn't a huge hit at the box office when it was first released. I can't find any figures online, though.

I'm guessing it didn't make enough as there weren't any sequels. The ending makes it look as though either they ran out of money in production or they were expecting it to have a follow-up.

Anyway, regarding John Carter, I expect Disney will break even eventually but it beats me how anyone can hope for a sequel with the budget that would be required to match the effects in the first outing.

[Harvey]

Indeed, there was apparently early talk of a sequel called "Robinson Crusoe and the Invisible Galaxy," but that was scrapped after the film failed to light the box office on fire. (Just found this in a Tom Weaver interview book)

[Temis the Vorta]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

should've stuck with "Princess of Mars"...

Warlord of Mars, to avoid confusion, if JC is the main character. If they wanted to title it Princess of Mars, then Dejah should be the main character, which would be fine by me but that's not what they did.

And let's face if, for Disney to release a movie called Princess of Mars will lead most people to assume it's an animated fairy tale. Don't make the mistake of assuming the audience knows anything about the source material, because they don't.

Why make their jobs tougher than they need to be, by creating a misleading impression that they'll have to spend millions on countering, while at the same time spending millions more trying to sell the movie? Call it Warlord of Mars and focus on selling people the epic romantic story of a tragic Civil War veteran who gets his chance at love and redemption on an amazing alien world.

Warlord of Mars tells you it's an action movie ("war"); about a guy fighting for power ("lord"); it's sci fi ("Mars"); and it's kind of retro ("warlord") but that can be cool. The title doesn't get "romance" or "redemption" in there, so those elements should be the focus of the marketing campaign. And there you have the whole package.

[Dream]

Mr Light wrote:

---

But every Mars movie has bombed "Mars Needs Moms", Disney's Mars movie last year, is one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. Ghosts of Mars... Red Planet... that other one from around 2000...

Total Recall was actually a hit when it was released. That obviously took place on Mars.

Lots of people actually went to that movie unlike John Carter. TR was based on a much less famous story, but it actually had a popular action star in the lead role instead of a nobody.

[captcalhoun]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Warlord of Mars, to avoid confusion, if JC is the main character. If they wanted to title it Princess of Mars, then Dejah should be the main character, which would be fine by me but that's not what they did.

And let's face if, for Disney to release a movie called Princess of Mars will lead most people to assume it's an animated fairy tale. Don't make the mistake of assuming the audience knows anything about the source material, because they don't.

Why make their jobs tougher than they need to be, by creating a misleading impression that they'll have to spend millions on countering, while at the same time spending millions more trying to sell the movie? Call it Warlord of Mars and focus on selling people the epic romantic story of a tragic Civil War veteran who gets his chance at love and redemption on an amazing alien world.

Warlord of Mars tells you it's an action movie ("war"); about a guy fighting for power ("lord"); it's sci fi ("Mars"); and it's kind of retro ("warlord") but that can be cool. The title doesn't get "romance" or "redemption" in there, so those elements should be the focus of the marketing campaign. And there you have the whole package.

except Warlord of Mars is a different book and would be the basis of JC2.

alright, should've gone way retro and called it "John Carter and the Princess of Mars"

[Bob The Skutter]

Doesn't the film mix elements of 3 different books?

[captcalhoun]

nope, as far as i know it's just an adap of Princess of Mars.

[Gov Kodos]

It takes characters and locations from the first 3 books, but its not even a loose adaptation of A Princess of Mars. It has many similar scenes and the tone is very much in tune with the books. However, it's not a close following of the story in A Princess of Mars. The basic premise of him getting to Mars, meeting Dejah, Tars and Sola as well as fighting Zodanga are from the first book but that's about it. The Therns are from the second book, but they are religious hucksters using the ancient Martian religion to prey on the other Martians and aren't techno-gods as in the movie. The third book deals more with the ancient Martan religion and the goddess Issus mentioned in the movie.

[Mr Light]

Yeah, they said Total Recall was the only successful Mars movie. BUT! They don't have Mars in the title. And it was in 1990, that's 22 years ago